ARCHIVED - Telecom Procedural Letter Addressed to Paul Cowling (Shaw Cablesystems G.P) and Stephen Schmidt (TELUS Communications Company)

Ottawa, 26 March 2015

Our reference: 8690-S9-201411967

BY E-MAIL

Mr. Paul Cowling
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
Shaw Cablesystems G.P.
40 Elgin Street, Suite 1400
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5K6
regulatory@sjrb.ca

Mr. Stephen Schmidt
Vice-President - Telecom Policy & Chief Regulatory Legal Counsel
Telecom Policy and Regulatory Affairs
TELUS Communications Company
215 Slater Street, 8th floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 0A6
regulatory.affairs@telus.com

RE: Cablesystems G.P. - Application regarding alleged overbilled charges by TELUS Communications Company for service poles in British Columbia

Dear Sirs,

On 19 November 2014, Shaw Cablesystems G.P. (Shaw) filed the above referenced application. In it, Shaw alleged that TELUS Communications Company (TCC) was overbilling it for service poles in British Columbia, in particular due to service poles located on private property. The record for this file was to close on 23 February 2015, when Shaw filed its final reply.

On 13 March 2015, TCC filed a letter with the Commission objecting to some of the information provided by Shaw in its final reply. TCC requested that the Commission:

1. grant TCC 15 business days to respond to the alleged new information and requested relief in Shaw’s final reply;
2. expunge Appendix A of Shaw’s final reply from the record of the proceeding; and
3. remove Shaw’s abridged final reply from the public record until Shaw files a revised abridged final reply with the Commission that removes certain information that TCC considered to be confidential.

On 16 March 2015, Shaw filed a letter with the Commission requesting that the Commission deny TCC’s aforementioned requests.

Confidentiality

TCC argued that Shaw revealed information in its final reply that TCC had designated confidential in previous filings in this proceeding, namely the number of service poles with no Shaw attachment and the number of duplicate service poles.

Commission staff notes Shaw’s arguments that such information does not fall within any of the recognised categories of confidential information and, in particular, that the information in question was Shaw’s information, not TCC’s. Commission staff also notes, however, that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules of Procedure) require a party to file a request with the Commission for the disclosure of information that has been designated as confidential, and establishes a process which allows the Commission to determine whether confidential information should be disclosed.

In this regard, Commission staff notes that TCC’s designation of the information specified above as confidential makes that information confidential for this proceeding. Staff considers that TCC’s disclosure of such information to Shaw does not change the fact that TCC designated such information as being confidential.

As the appropriate procedure to request disclosure of confidential information was not followed by Shaw, Commission staff has removed from its website and the public record any documents provided by Shaw that refers to the disputed information, until such time as a determination with respect to disclosure can be made.^{Footnote 1} Further, Commission staff will treat Shaw’s 16 March 2015 letter as a request for disclosure of confidential information under the Rules of Procedure.

Accordingly, TCC has until 7 April 2015 to file a reply to Shaw’s request for disclosure of the number of service poles with no Shaw attachment and the number of duplicate service poles, which TCC had previously designated to be confidential.

Appropriateness of Shaw’s Reply

TCC argued that Shaw provided new information in its 23 February 2015 final reply, namely a new request for relief and a Statement of Work provided in Appendix A. TCC also argued that Shaw requested for the first time relief not included in its original application.

In the interest of having a fulsome record for the benefit of the Commission, staff considers that it would be worthwhile to have the parties provide comment on the issues raised in Shaw’s reply

In light of the above, Commission staff modifies the procedure for the above noted application as follows:

1) By no later than 9 April 2015, TCC may file with the Commission and serve a copy on Shaw, comments on Shaw’s 23 February 2015 final reply.

2) Shaw may file an answer to TCC’s comments, serving a copy on TCC, by 16 April 2015.

Commissions staff considers that this additional opportunity to comment should be sufficient to close the record on this file. Commission staff does not intend to consider requests for additional process. Therefore, parties are strongly encouraged to present their best and final arguments related to the evidence and relief currently on the record.

Sincerely,

Original signed by

Michel Murray
Director, Dispute Resolution & Regulatory Implementation
Telecommunications Sector

c.c.:  Kevin Pickell, CRTC, 819-997-4580, kevin.pickell@crtc.gc.ca

Date modified:

2015-03-26